header-logo header-logo

02 September 2010 / Sarah Johnson
Issue: 7431 / Categories: Features , Terms&conditions , Employment
printer mail-detail

Money talks

Sarah Johnson analyses employees gagging for a pay discussion

Gagging staff will become more difficult next month, at least where pay discussions are concerned. Some contracts include pay secrecy terms. However, these could prevent someone discovering whether they are paid less for discriminatory reasons.

When the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) comes into force on 1 October 2010, reliance on gagging clauses will be restricted. The Act does not ban gagging clauses altogether, but a clause will be unenforceable if it seeks to prevent a “relevant pay disclosure”. The intention is to ensure greater workplace transparency and dialogue about pay. “Pay” could cover salary, bonus and other benefits, such as pension.

Under s 77 of the Act, a term of a person’s work that purports to prevent or restrict that person (P) from: (i) disclosing or seeking to disclose information about the terms of P’s work is unenforceable against P in so far as P makes or seeks to make a relevant pay disclosure to colleagues or third parties, or (ii) seeking disclosure of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll